User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 57

  1. #21
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Capitalism is inherently antidemocratic and antithetical to the freedom of all but those who own land and capital.

    Everyone and anyone can own capital, that's the beauty...

    Land has nothing to do with capital, particularly in the 21st century.

  2. #22
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,776

    Default

    pickles, i vote pickled pigs feet.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  3. #23
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    The frame of context should shift to the right for it to make sense, the perception of this cartoonist is skewed.
    Peirce Quincuncial Projection map!


    Yeah what now?

  4. #24
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Peirce Quincuncial Projection map!


    Yeah what now?

    *head asplodes*

  5. #25
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'm against submitting.

  6. #26
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Everyone and anyone can own capital, that's the beauty...

    Land has nothing to do with capital, particularly in the 21st century.
    Even if that theoretically may be the case, how exactly is that going to put a roof over your head, and food on the table?

    Land has nothing to do with capital? Tell that to Vornado, Cushman & Wakefield, etc.

  7. #27
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Sometimes I think it's the recognition of collective behavior and social psychology, and the power culture exerts over identity and will, but I'm not sure westerners are even aware enough of this to be against it, per se.

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    you can't be against capitalism, Lark!


    it's the cornerstone of democratic society. unless you think mixing social aspects in nullifies the term capitalism....

    in which case i'm socialist. but i definitely think capitalism is a requirement for freedom.
    Well, what do you mean by capitalism?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #28
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Even if that theoretically may be the case, how exactly is that going to put a roof over your head, and food on the table?

    Land has nothing to do with capital? Tell that to Vornado, Cushman & Wakefield, etc.

    You work under someone else's invested capital. I have provided a life for myself these past five years by doing so, and am now investing my earned capital back into society by employing contractors to work.... ironically, at my property.

    You are correct, land can have to do with capital. What I meant was that one does not have to own land to produce capital, so I feel the argument is relatively unfounded, and should not have been brought into the discussion. But that is my opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, what do you mean by capitalism?

    For me, capitalism is the social right to collect assets and utilize them at the discretion of the owner. I understand that this can lead to unnecessary pools of power, which is why I initially stated if you wanted to get technical, I am a socialist.

    But I very much believe man should have the ability to obtain, collect, and use his assets as he wishes - for the most part.

  9. #29
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    You work under someone else's invested capital. I have provided a life for myself these past five years by doing so, and am now investing my earned capital back into society by employing contractors to work.... ironically, at my property.
    Yes, you sell your labor to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. You're required to do this in order to live, and you have no choice to pursue another path or arrangement unless you can amass a surplus of cash. Even if you can choose your employer, you cannot choose to not work, unless you have enough invested capital to live off the gains. It is extremely rare to acquire this sort of capital in the vast majority of wage positions.

    May I ask what kind of work you are contracting out, and what property this work is being done at?

    You are correct, land can have to do with capital. What I meant was that one does not have to own land to produce capital, so I feel the argument is relatively unfounded, and should not have been brought into the discussion. But that is my opinion.
    That wasn't me who emphasized the importance of land in the discussion and analysis of capitalism; it was Adam Smith. Land gives you the ability to charge rents, and thus not have to work for a living, provided those rents cover one's own living expenses. It also gives you the wealth arising from the Earth's natural bounty; oil and natural gas being the most prominent ones in modern society. Capitalists have to pay rent to landlords, and buy raw materials from them, while purchasing labor from workers to operate the machinery and perform various other services. Meanwhile, workers pay rent to landlords for housing while purchasing essential finished goods from capitalists. Landlords only have to pay capitalists for the finished goods, and nothing to workers. So, capitalists pay two ways while receiving money from two directions, landlords receive money from two directions while paying in only one direction, while workers must pay in two directions while only receiving money from one direction. According to Smith, this is the imbalance that is inescapable in a capitalist system.

    Modern finance works in much the same way as landlords did 250 years ago, as they provide access to monetary reserves in exchange for rents (i.e. interest), and in the absence of sufficient wages being paid by capitalists to workers, requiring consumer debt, they get money from two directions while only paying it in one (to capitalists for finished goods). Technically they also give and take from landlords both for rents and land purchase financing, but that does not necessarily matter, because unencumbered title to land is almost always a better store of wealth than money. As such, they exist in parallel with landlords.

    So, as a landlord and/or financier, one is only beholden to capitalists in the sense that they must be paid for providing food and finished materials to improve one's holdings. Purchasing the labor of a worker is fully at the pleasure of the landlord/financier, and wholly unnecessary if the latter does not require the services of the worker. Thus, there is far more opportunity to hoard and consolidate wealth while performing relatively little work. As mentioned before, Smith saw this as the greatest flaw in and threat to the capitalist system.

    The capitalist has to pay rent and returns on financial capital (either interest or dividends), along with the wages of the worker and the cost of maintaining the capital (i.e., whatever it is that takes an input and turns it into a finished product). In return, everyone purchases the finished products or their derivatives from him. The goal of the capitalist is to amass enough profit that he can purchase title to the land, ending rent payments, while investing a significant portion profits so as to gain the advantage of collecting interest. Once this is done, the next step is to vertically integrate to reduce input costs, and then to horizontally integrate to be able to reduce output and as such inflate the price of finished products. Workers would see their wages depressed for lack of competing employers, while they would purchase increasingly expensive items on credit, provided by the capitalist. This point where the capitalist assumed the functions of landlord and financier, and then monopolized, is one of Marx's chief concerns. It is also why capitalism taken to its end is antithetical to freedom for everyone other than the capitalist, for the natural outcome is for him to control every aspect of the worker's economic life. When the capitalist has that level of control over whether the worker lives, dies from starvation, or goes into self-imposed exile, it is a despotism of the worst sort.

    On the other hand, the worker must pay rent, interest on personal debt, and the price of finished goods from the capitalist, while only being paid wages. If the worker does not sell his labor to the capitalist or landlord/financier, he will be evicted, go bankrupt, and/or starve. He is not a free man, but a slave who gets to choose his master, and if he is lucky and in the right market, possibly influence his rate of pay. He has no choice that does not involve the sale of his labor for wages, and submission to the capitalist's commands while that time is paid for.

  10. #30
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yes, you sell your labor to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. You're required to do this in order to live, and you have no choice to pursue another path or arrangement unless you can amass a surplus of cash. Even if you can choose your employer, you cannot choose to not work, unless you have enough invested capital to live off the gains. It is extremely rare to acquire this sort of capital in the vast majority of wage positions.

    May I ask what kind of work you are contracting out, and what property this work is being done at?



    That wasn't me who emphasized the importance of land in the discussion and analysis of capitalism; it was Adam Smith. Land gives you the ability to charge rents, and thus not have to work for a living, provided those rents cover one's own living expenses. It also gives you the wealth arising from the Earth's natural bounty; oil and natural gas being the most prominent ones in modern society. Capitalists have to pay rent to landlords, and buy raw materials from them, while purchasing labor from workers to operate the machinery and perform various other services. Meanwhile, workers pay rent to landlords for housing while purchasing essential finished goods from capitalists. Landlords only have to pay capitalists for the finished goods, and nothing to workers. So, capitalists pay two ways while receiving money from two directions, landlords receive money from two directions while paying in only one direction, while workers must pay in two directions while only receiving money from one direction. According to Smith, this is the imbalance that is inescapable in a capitalist system.

    Modern finance works in much the same way as landlords did 250 years ago, as they provide access to monetary reserves in exchange for rents (i.e. interest), and in the absence of sufficient wages being paid by capitalists to workers, requiring consumer debt, they get money from two directions while only paying it in one (to capitalists for finished goods). Technically they also give and take from landlords both for rents and land purchase financing, but that does not necessarily matter, because unencumbered title to land is almost always a better store of wealth than money. As such, they exist in parallel with landlords.

    So, as a landlord and/or financier, one is only beholden to capitalists in the sense that they must be paid for providing food and finished materials to improve one's holdings. Purchasing the labor of a worker is fully at the pleasure of the landlord/financier, and wholly unnecessary if the latter does not require the services of the worker. Thus, there is far more opportunity to hoard and consolidate wealth while performing relatively little work. As mentioned before, Smith saw this as the greatest flaw in and threat to the capitalist system.

    The capitalist has to pay rent and returns on financial capital (either interest or dividends), along with the wages of the worker and the cost of maintaining the capital (i.e., whatever it is that takes an input and turns it into a finished product). In return, everyone purchases the finished products or their derivatives from him. The goal of the capitalist is to amass enough profit that he can purchase title to the land, ending rent payments, while investing a significant portion profits so as to gain the advantage of collecting interest. Once this is done, the next step is to vertically integrate to reduce input costs, and then to horizontally integrate to be able to reduce output and as such inflate the price of finished products. Workers would see their wages depressed for lack of competing employers, while they would purchase increasingly expensive items on credit, provided by the capitalist. This point where the capitalist assumed the functions of landlord and financier, and then monopolized, is one of Marx's chief concerns. It is also why capitalism taken to its end is antithetical to freedom for everyone other than the capitalist, for the natural outcome is for him to control every aspect of the worker's economic life. When the capitalist has that level of control over whether the worker lives, dies from starvation, or goes into self-imposed exile, it is a despotism of the worst sort.

    On the other hand, the worker must pay rent, interest on personal debt, and the price of finished goods from the capitalist, while only being paid wages. If the worker does not sell his labor to the capitalist or landlord/financier, he will be evicted, go bankrupt, and/or starve. He is not a free man, but a slave who gets to choose his master, and if he is lucky and in the right market, possibly influence his rate of pay. He has no choice that does not involve the sale of his labor for wages, and submission to the capitalist's commands while that time is paid for.
    And this is why I'm going to be buying a quadruplex instead of a house.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2017, 11:28 AM
  2. Trump Rejects the Paris Climate Agreement - What are we missing in the US?
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [MBTItm] What are some of the types you've been mistyped as?
    By Lsjnzy13 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 12:16 PM
  4. What do you fear the most?
    By alcea rosea in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 04:05 PM
  5. N: what are we actually speaking about ?
    By developer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO